IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aio/manmar/v4y2006i1p107-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pledging for New Conceptual Perspectives in Decision-Making Process

Author

Listed:
  • Claudiu BOCEAN

    (University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania)

Abstract

This paper works is a pledge for inclusion of alternative conceptual perspectives in decision making theory and practice. Actual decision science tools and leadership style do have applicability. However, their relevance and applicability are very much subjugated by the complexity, uncertainty and near unknowability of the decision-making context. New conceptual perspectives are required. We highlights the relevance of complex, chaotic environments and asymmetric information to decision processes. It is necessary to adopt new theoretical approaches and to help practitioners understand the reasons for decision failures.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudiu BOCEAN, 2006. "Pledging for New Conceptual Perspectives in Decision-Making Process," Management and Marketing Journal, University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 4(1), pages 107-112, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:aio:manmar:v:4:y:2006:i:1:p:107-112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mnmk.ro/documents/2006/2006-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitroff, Ian I. & Linstone, Harold A., 1993. "The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 88-89.
    2. Christopher Rowe, 1989. "Analysing Management Decision‐Making: Further Thoughts After The Bradford Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 29-46, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lecturer Cătălin Mihail Barbu Ph. D & Lecturer Flaviu Meghişan Ph. D, 2010. "Revenues Management In The Marketing Of Services," Annals of University of Craiova - Economic Sciences Series, University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 3(38), pages 1-8, May.
    2. Liviu CRACIUN & Catalin Mihail BARBU, 2011. "Determining Consumers’ Propensity To Buy Romanian Products," Management and Marketing Journal, University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 0(2), pages 255-264, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gu, Jifa & Tang, Xijin, 2005. "Meta-synthesis approach to complex system modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(3), pages 597-614, November.
    2. Sandra M. Richardson & James F. Courtney & David B. Paradice, 2001. "An Assessment of the Singerian Inquiring Organizational Model: Cases from Academia and the Utility Industry," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 49-62, March.
    3. Georgios K. Vasios & Andreas Y. Troumbis & Yiannis Zevgolis & Maria N. Hatziantoniou & Marios F. Balis, 2019. "Environmental choices in the era of ecological modernization: siting of common interest facilities as a multi-alternative decision field problem in insular setups," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 49-64, March.
    4. Steven Way & Yufei Yuan, 2014. "Transitioning From Dynamic Decision Support to Context-Aware Multi-Party Coordination: A Case for Emergency Response," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 649-672, July.
    5. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    6. David Ing, 2013. "Rethinking Systems Thinking: Learning and Coevolving with the World," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 527-547, September.
    7. Vidgen, Richard & Hindle, Giles & Randolph, Ian, 2020. "Exploring the ethical implications of business analytics with a business ethics canvas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(3), pages 491-501.
    8. Hamood Al-Kharusi & Suraya Miskon & Mahadi Bahari, 2021. "Enterprise architects and stakeholders alignment framework in enterprise architecture development," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 137-181, March.
    9. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    10. Mark Stubbs & Mark Lemon & Phil Longhurst, 2000. "Intelligent Urban Management: Learning to Manage and Managing to Learn Together for a Change," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(10), pages 1801-1811, September.
    11. Gerald Midgley & Erik Lindhult, 2021. "A systems perspective on systemic innovation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 635-670, October.
    12. HULPUȘ Ioana & HULPUȘ Alexandru, 2023. "Sustainable Development Perspectives Of Romanian Justice System In The 2030 Agenda Context," Management of Sustainable Development, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 15(2), pages 87-93, December.
    13. James F. Courtney & Sandra Richardson & David Paradice, 2013. "Decision support systems for ecosystems management: a Singerian approach to urban infrastructure decision making," Chapters, in: M. A. Quaddus & M. A.B. Siddique (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development Planning, chapter 13, pages 303-321, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Gerald Zaltman, 2016. "Marketing’s forthcoming Age of imagination," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(3), pages 99-115, December.
    15. Wilburn, Kathleen M. & Wilburn, H. Ralph, 2016. "Asking “What Else?” to identify unintended negative consequences," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 213-221.
    16. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    17. Ormerod, Richard & Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2023. "Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: A research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 810-827.
    18. Mark Stubbs, 2000. "Action, knowledge and business–environment research: a case for grounded constitutive process theories and a sense of audience," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 24-35, January.
    19. H V Vo & B Chae & D L Olson, 2007. "Developing unbounded systems thinking: using causal mapping with multiple stakeholders within a Vietnamese company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 655-668, May.
    20. Keidel, Robert W., 2013. "Strategy made simple: Thinking in threes," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 105-111.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision-making; decisional process;

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aio:manmar:v:4:y:2006:i:1:p:107-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catalin Barbu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fecraro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.